The justices' decision Monday ends lawsuits first filed in 2000. Federal appeals courts in New York and Washington threw out the complaints after Congress passed a law in 2005 giving the gun industry broad immunity against such lawsuits.

The city's lawsuit asked for no monetary damages. It had sought a court order for gun makers to more closely monitor those dealers who frequently sell guns later used to commit crimes.

But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that federal law provides the gun industry with broad immunity from lawsuits brought by crime victims and violence-plagued cities. The Supreme Court refused to reconsider that decision.

The lawsuit was first brought in June 2000 while Rudy Giuliani was New York mayor. It was delayed due to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and because of similar litigation in the state courts.

Al-Marri is charged with providing material support to terror and conspiracy and is expected to be sent to Illinois to enter a plea. On Tuesday, he answered affirmatively when a federal magistrate asked the 43-year-old Qatar native whether he understood the counts against him.

First, al-Marri is to appear again in Charleston federal court on March 18 for a detention hearing where a judge will decide whether he can be released on bail. Until his transfer, prosecutors and defense attorneys agreed to keep al-Marri in a civilian cell at the Navy brig where he's been held since 2003 so that he has more access to his lawyers.

Wearing a gray, hooded sweat shirt, gray sweat pants, a long black beard flecked with gray and a close-fitting cap, al-Marri entered the courtroom for the 10-minute hearing and shared a quiet laugh with his attorney. He smiled and glanced around the courtroom as lawyer Andy Savage appeared to point out the different courtroom officials.

The court by a 7-2 vote reversed a state Supreme Court decision in favor of Michael Brillon, whose conviction for assaulting his girlfriend was overturned. The state court said Brillon's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated after he was jailed for three years and went through six defense attorneys before his trial.

Hours after Monday's decision, Bennington County State's Attorney Erica Marthage filed the paperwork with the Vermont District Court to have Brillon re-arrested. He was released in April after his 12- to 20-year sentence was cut short by the state court's decision.

"It creates a sense that someone gaming the system, like he was, isn't going to be able to get away with it," Marthage said Monday of the Supreme Court ruling. "It puts some faith back into the system."

Marthage said she didn't know how the state court that will consider her motion would rule because the case was so unusual.

The Supreme Court decision, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said taxpayers may foot the bill for a public defender, but the lawyer represents his client. It sent the case back to the Vermont Supreme Court for reconsideration.

Defense attorney Ira Lee Sorkin's late father once had an account with Madoff. The lawyer also represented two Madoff-linked accountants in a securities case 17 years ago.

Madoff is expected to say he doesn't mind the potential conflict.

Prosecutors have sought a hearing Tuesday before Judge Denny Chin in federal court.

The court appearance is expected to be a warmup to Madoff's Thursday plea hearing when he is expected to plead guilty in the case. At least 25 investors have indicated they'd like to speak Thursday.

The 70-year-old Madoff was arrested in December and accused in a $50 billion fraud.

The court ruling on Monday reverses a Vermont Supreme Court decision that threw out the assault conviction of Michael Brillon. The state court said Brillon's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated after he was jailed for three years and went through six defense attorneys before his trial for hitting his girlfriend in the face.

In an opinion by Justice Ruth Ginsburg, the court said taxpayers may pay the bills for a public defender, but the lawyer represents his client, not the state.

"Most of the delay that the Vermont Supreme Court attributed to the state must therefore be attributed to Brillon as delays caused by his counsel," Ginsburg said.

But the court also said the state high court should take another look at whether a breakdown in Vermont's public defender system played a role in Brillon's case and, if so, whether his rights were violated.

The 5-4 decision, with the court's conservatives in the majority, could make it harder for southern Democrats to draw friendly boundaries after the 2010 Census.

The court declined to expand protections of the landmark civil rights law to take in electoral districts where the minority population is less than 50 percent of the total, but strong enough to effectively determine the outcome of elections.

In 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a state legislative district in which blacks made up only about 39 percent of the voting age population. The court said the Voting Rights Act applies only to districts with a numerical majority of minority voters.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, announcing the court's judgment, said that requiring minorities to represent more than half the population "draws clear lines for courts and legislatures alike. The same cannot be said of a less exacting standard."